The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

Last May, Deborah Blum, a Pulitzer-winning science writer and a professor of journalism at the University of Wisconsin, published a column pleading with the New York Times’ opinion columnist Nick Kristof to stop writing about chemical risk:

“…if we, as journalists, are going to demand meticulous standards for the study and oversight of chemical compounds then we should try to be meticulous ourselves in making the case. And much as I would like it to be otherwise, I don’t see enough of that in Kristof’s chemical columns. They tend instead to be sloppy in their use of language, less than thorough, and chemophobic enough to undermine his legitimate points.”

Blum’s column got a lot of positive coverage, with many commenters further “fisking” Kristof’s apocalyptic claims and the politics behind them. It made, alas, not a blind bit of difference. At the bookend of summer, Kristof is at it again, beating his favorite chemical conspiracy theory – “Big Chem” is preventing the Federal Government from protecting Americans from dangerous, endocrine disrupting chemicals. Growing numbers of scientists are increasingly concerned and so on and so forth.

But even though Kristof claims to be reading the “peer-reviewed” research, it appears that he only reads that produced by a very, very small group of scientists – all on the farthest reaches of the environmental left. He applies no statistical or experimental criticism to these studies: they always “really” find what they claim to have found; and he seems unaware of the many non-industry funded studies or regulatory agency assessments that contradict them. There is no mention, for instance, of the 15-page point-by-point rebuttal written by the Food and Drug Administration to the Natural Resources Defense Council’s petition to ban BPA, a rebuttal which relies, primarily, on non-industry funded research.

Moreover, readers of Kristof would have no idea that the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) is presiding over a $30-million dollar evaluation of BPA, which will result in, arguably, one of the most comprehensive characterizations of the properties and the pharmacokinetics of any chemical in the history of mankind. (This is on top of the millions spent by the FDA and EPA). The NCTR is doing so in conjunction with all the federal agencies, including the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which has funded much of the “BPA is dangerous” research in the past.

Notably, the scientists who conducted this controversial research (controversial because other regulatory agencies in the US and around the world couldn’t replicate it) now have to repeat their experiments according to higher standards of reporting, statistical power, and experimental control. The studies are also being blinded so the researchers won’t know whether the lab animals they are analyzing are from the control or dose group, and the final results will be interpreted by the NCTR. Results will begin to trickle out soon.

Asking for proof of replication is not a devious, anti-science tactic on the part of what Kristof call’s “Big Chem;” it is the only way to establish validity in science. Remember – according to the much-cited work of medical mathematician John Ionnaidis, the probability that most basic research findings are wrong is surprisingly high.

I have interviewed many scientists who work with regulatory agencies around the world on BPA and other chemical issues. There is a consensus that the cluelessness of journalists like Kristof has not just wildly distorted the actual scientific evidence on BPA, it is contributing to a more general and broader assault on scientific integrity.

The outcome of this will be terrible: regulation by politics - and not by a disinterested enthusiasm for best experimental methods and the best data. This, of course, would suit Kristof’s sources just fine, because the kind of science they are doing doesn’t have anywhere close to the funding priorities, say, of cancer or AIDS. But the more alarming the message that they can put out about the low dose risks of chemicals, the more funding from the dwindling federal pot of research money they are likely to pull in, thus keeping them in academic employment. Unfortunately, an academic conflict of interest doesn’t make as good a media conspiracy story as that of “Big Chem.”

The point is that we need good regulation. We need quantified risk – not hypothetical risk. We need agencies that pursue the best possible scientific research without fear of unemployment or favor to industry or politics. Which is why Kristof’s ongoing, studied refusal to talk to the FDA on BPA is unconscionably bad opinion journalism. It is doing to the agency for Democrats what right-wing criticism is doing to the Environmental Protection Agency for Republicans: stripping both of scientific legitimacy. The public needs to know what the FDA is doing, because it is doing a lot and doing it well. And for evidence of that,don't just take it from me, take it from NPR.